Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual, page 41

privacy

Pages: << 38 39 40 41 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 29 times

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 08:22 AM by Garfee

Originally posted by Sicksicksick

Babies should be given both a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers.

They only thing babies should be given is love.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:02 PM by Annee

Originally posted by Sicksicksick

Babies should be given both a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers.

Opposite gender parents is completely unnecessary.

Babies/children need love and nurturing. They don't care what the gender is.

The only people who have a problem are "outsiders" like you.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:07 PM by earthdude

Church is no place to be talking about cunnilingus, anal sex, or any kind of sex. Many Christian organizations have become hate groups. They are listed among the neo-nazis. They should go back to being a love group. Leave the sex, violence and politics out of church.

edit on 28-4-2012 by earthdude because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:11 PM by snusfanatic

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Very interesting. Isn't a member of nearly any Abrahamic religion, "anti" other religions also? Think about it. If you're a christian you would raise the kid not to be a muslim. If you're a muslim you would raise the kid not to be a jew. If your'e a jew you would raise the kid not to be either, etc. So what's next? Anybody that has any religious belief is too intolerant to raise a child? We're becoming an anemic civilization (Western Civilization). We used to value robust freedom of speech and a market place of ideas, now we preach the same 'values' but its just a hollowed out version that encourages a society that believes in nothing.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:20 PM by FaceLikeTheSun

reply to post by The Djin

My take on gay marriage is that a man and a man or woman and woman should they choose to be life partners should be granted the same institutional (meaning government) privileges as a hetero sexual couple.

However, I don't condone homosexuality. We need to define marriage. There is a spiritual/religious definition of it and there is the government/institutional definition. The two should be distinguished.

And to your point, no matter how much man an man have relations, they cannot have a natural child. They have to defy nature via science to do so.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:43 PM by Annee

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

And to your point, no matter how much man an man have relations, they cannot have a natural child. They have to defy nature via science to do so.

Yet the married couple in church who has been childless - - - and is now able to conceive through modern technology is blessed and prayed for.

Often an egg or sperm is from a donor. Making the child not their natural child.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:55 PM by FaceLikeTheSun

reply to post by Annee

I don't agree with that. I understand what your saying but trust me when I say I am as critical of the institution of church as the non Christians.

People want children so bad, they can't accept that they are incapable of doing so. Adopt a child. Plenty of kids who are parent-less.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 01:58 PM by Annee

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by Annee

I don't agree with that. I understand what your saying but trust me when I say I am as critical of the institution of church as the non Christians.

People want children so bad, they can't accept that they are incapable of doing so. Adopt a child. Plenty of kids who are parent-less.

What part don't you agree with?

A hetero couple going through medical procedures to have a child - - - will be celebrated in their church.

These same people condemn a gay couple for doing the same thing - - - saying they are incapable of having a natural child.

edit on 28-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 02:03 PM by Annee

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
Adopt a child. Plenty of kids who are parent-less.

Why is there like a 10 year wait to adopt an infant?

There are laws in many states against gay adoption.

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 02:35 PM by FaceLikeTheSun

reply to post by Annee

I don't know enough about the law to comment on the adoption law. But I was commenting first on the Christian using technology to have kids. That's what I don't completely agree with

However, there is a difference I think between scientific assistance and flat out tune babies.

With the couple that can't have a child, they're using science to assist what is natural.

But with a homosexual couple, they have to bring in a third party (usually of the opposite sex) to make children.

So I guess the question is, what do you consider ok for the kinds of technology for a gay couple to have kids? Like designer babies? Take the DNA from the parents and create a baby in a tube?

reply posted on 28-4-2012 @ 11:17 PM by Annee

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

However, there is a difference I think between scientific assistance and flat out tune babies.

With the couple that can't have a child, they're using science to assist what is natural.

But with a homosexual couple, they have to bring in a third party (usually of the opposite sex) to make children.

So I guess the question is, what do you consider ok for the kinds of technology for a gay couple to have kids? Like designer babies? Take the DNA from the parents and create a baby in a tube?

Many hetero couples need to bring in a third party as well. I made that point in previous post.

So - let me get this straight. You are saying: If a hetero couple and a gay couple go through the exact same procedures to produce a baby - - - the gay couple is still wrong - - because they can't produce a baby naturally.

Is that really what you are saying?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave the designer baby and DNA for another discussion.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 05:29 PM by Garfee

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by Annee

I don't know enough about the law to comment on the adoption law. But I was commenting first on the Christian using technology to have kids. That's what I don't completely agree with

However, there is a difference I think between scientific assistance and flat out tune babies.

With the couple that can't have a child, they're using science to assist what is natural.

But with a homosexual couple, they have to bring in a third party (usually of the opposite sex) to make children.

So I guess the question is, what do you consider ok for the kinds of technology for a gay couple to have kids? Like designer babies? Take the DNA from the parents and create a baby in a tube?

That is so ridiculous. If a heterosexual couple can't have a baby, using technology to assist them to have one is natural but a for homosexual couple who have an egg with the came technology it's unnatural?

Honestly how much stupidity do I have to read before I can just say, "that's stupid"?

It's one or the bloody other! Natural or unnatural! Not one rule for these guys and another for those guys.

edit on 1-5-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)